MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583743183 · doi:10.5802/aif.3091

Complexity as a homeomorphism invariant for tiling spaces

2017· preprint· en· W1583743183 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Antoine Julien

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de l’institut Fourier · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuasicrystal Structures and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversität BielefeldPacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsMathematicsSubstitution tilingAperiodic graphTopological conjugacyHomeomorphism (graph theory)Invariant (physics)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is proved that whenever two aperiodic repetitive tilings with finite local complexity have homeomorphic tiling spaces, their associated complexity functions are asymptotically equivalent in a certain sense (which implies, if the complexity is polynomial, that the exponent of the leading term is preserved by homeomorphism). This theorem can be reworded in terms of d -dimensional infinite words: if two ℤ d -subshifts (with the same conditions as above) are flow equivalent, their complexity functions are equivalent up to rescaling. An analogous theorem is stated for the repetitivity function, which is a quantitative measure of the recurrence of orbits in the tiling space. Behind this result is the fact that any homeomorphism between tiling spaces is described by a so-called “shape deformation”. In the last section, we use this observation to show that a certain cohomology group is an invariant of homeomorphisms between tiling spaces up to topological conjugacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de l’institut FourierSame topicQuasicrystal Structures and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207